Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Sunday Propaganda | Main | Jihad is a non-negotiable position »

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Postponing the inevitable

Two weeks ago, Damian Brooks identified what he called a "gargantuan, fly-a-Herc-through-it hole in the war reporting from Lebanon," namely, any news whatsoever of how Israel was making out in its military objectives. I didn't notice that situation improve in the days that followed, but there was plenty of anecdotal evidence to rely on. On the last day before the ceasefire, for instance, Hezbollah launched some 250 rockets into Israel. No one is suggesting those were its last. The multinational force about to take control of southern Lebanon, assuming it can even be cobbled together from countries that recognize Israel, will have no firm mandate to disarm Hezbollah.

So the question remains: If Ehud Olmert is happy with the current situation, why did he wait so long before entertaining the idea of a ceasefire? I can't say whether or not Hezbollah would have been interested, but what conditions existed on August 14 that wouldn't have permitted negotiating for a ceasefire on August 7 or before? Hundreds of Lebanese civilians died in the intervening days, and no one with any power was fighting for them. Hezbollah's artillery positions set 'em up; Israel's missiles knocked 'em down. Civilians in southern Lebanon have ample cause to be enraged at both parties, but we all know who lost this PR war. Hezbollah is now in the process of cutting cheques to Lebanon's dispossessed. Olmert seems to be claiming victory based simply on his brand new pound of flesh.

These were not the grounds on which the United States, Canada and other nations supported Israel's offensive in Lebanon. This was supposed to be in pursuit of a long-term solution, as Yossi Klein Halevi lamented in The New Republic:

Israeli towns were exposed to the worst attacks since the nation's founding, a million residents of the Galilee fled or sat in shelters for a month, more than 150 Israeli civilians and soldiers were killed along with nearly a thousand Lebanese -- all in order to ensure the return of UN peacekeepers to southern Lebanon.

We forfeited the public relations battle that was, in part, Israel's to lose. How is it possible that we failed to explain the justness of a war fought against a genocidal enemy who attacked us across our UN-sanctioned international border? It's hard to remember now, but we began this war with the sympathy of a large part of the international community. Some Arab leaders, for the first time in the history of the Middle East conflict, actually blamed other Arabs for initiating hostilities with Israel. That response came when Israel seemed determined to defeat Hezbollah; but, as the weeks dragged on and Hezbollah appeared to be winning, moderate Arabs adjusted accordingly. They didn't switch sides because we were fighting too assertively but because we weren't fighting assertively enough.

"More assertive" didn't have to mean more missiles and more civilian collateral damage. It should have meant boots on the ground, as Charles Krauthammer rather presciently argued weeks ago:

…if all that happens is the air campaign, the result will be failure. Hezbollah will remain in place, Israel will remain under the gun, Lebanon will remain divided and unfree. And this war will start again at a time of Hezbollah and Iran's choosing.

Just as in Kuwait 1991, what must follow the air campaign is a land invasion to clear the ground and expel the occupier. Israel must retake south Lebanon and expel Hezbollah. It would then declare the obvious: that it has no claim to Lebanese territory and is prepared to withdraw and hand south Lebanon over to the Lebanese army (augmented perhaps by an international force), thus finally bringing about what the world has demanded -- implementation of Resolution 1559 and restoration of south Lebanon to Lebanese sovereignty.

Easier said than done, obviously, but at a time when the Israelis were uncommonly united, it appears it was their leaders who lacked nerve. Israel might never get that much rope again from the United States and its other key allies, and Olmert basically hanged himself with it. Conrad Black's piece in yesterday's National Post sums it up:

Israel acted on the Kosovo model of a war worth killing for but not worth dying for. Instead of going to where Hezbollah was, rooting them out, killing them, tearing up their bunkers and weapons stores and destroying them as a fighting force, as the Americans did at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, Israel made belligerent noises and ensured that Hezbollah would survive, shrieking from the house tops and the minarets of the Middle East that 5,000 brave Islamist warriors had stopped the Army of Israel.

So they should. They are brave and they did humiliate Israel. They have destroyed the mystique of Israeli invincibility, and eliminated a good deal of the perception of Israel's deterrent strength. Israel smashed up the internationally popular city of Beirut at no risk to its own airmen, and inflicted terrible hardship on hundreds of thousands of Lebanese civilians, after kindly dropping leaflets on them first. The Americans and even the French held the door open at the United Nations for the Israelis to finish the job with Hezbollah, and instead Israel essentially attacked civilians instead of their true enemy.

Of course, things today are better in northern Israel and southern Lebanon than they were two weeks ago. It's good that civilians will stop dying. But again, the assumption — my assumption, anyway — was that this horrible death toll was a means to a more secure, more sustainable end. I don't think anyone could claim that's where Israel is now.

(Cross-posted to Tart Cider.)

Posted by Chris Selley on August 20, 2006 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Postponing the inevitable:


Possibly one of the best commentaries on the recent ME conflict that has appeared at the WS recently.

Some of us who have read and studied a bit about Israeli techniques in the past under the guise of "security" predicted and found the numbers of civilian casualities terrible and shameful.

I have my own personal doubts Chris, if your post will motivate any to do some serious thinking about their "support for Israel" although I hope it does.

One is not going to defeat terrorists by assisting in the motivation of the creation of a hundred new ones every day.

Just like the "war on drugs," this "war on terror" is completely misguided and removes the focus of "root causes."

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 6:45:03 PM

Sure Ian, what was the Arab motivation for hegemonic expansion beyond the Arabian peninsula for the past 1400 years?

Until they have no more madrassas or Korans they have no need of 'Israeli' motivation.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-20 6:55:59 PM


Which is ...?

I agree, the ‘war on terror' designation is somewhat like ‘the war on blitzkreig', or the military method by which attempts at world domination are carried out.

At least in the war against National Socialism, there was a strong core group of people who were at least willing to take the reigns on a more civilized form of government.

In Iraq, the States has goofed up big-time, since the reigns of power were handed over to individuals whose idea of governance is much the same as the guy who was deposed.

Afghanistan appears headed much the same way.

Neither place seems much interested in democracy as we know it.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 6:56:24 PM

"what was the Arab motivation for hegemonic expansion beyond the Arabian peninsula for the past 1400 years?"

I don't know. Possibly a similar motivation the Brits had for their expansion which became "The British Empire."

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 6:59:47 PM

"Neither place seems much interested in democracy as we know it."

Correct. And I doubt you'll make the inhabitants interested by the power of the boot, either.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 7:00:50 PM

Not so, Ian, the Brits did it to fuel their resource limited needs, the Arabs did it for religious purposes. You are willfully ignornant at best.

I don't think you are ignorant.

This is a war of civilization against barbarians. Do you like the idea of enslaving women, Ian?
What do you willfully serve?

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-20 7:06:31 PM


Interestingly enough, there is no historical evidence of Arab imperialism until about 1400 years ago.

It all happened, for the first time in Arab history, within 100 years of Mohammed's time on earth.

Coincidence? I think not.

We see it at work again in Somalia and in South Lebanon.

We're all pretty good at carping about the problem.

Where's the solution? In education? In ridicule? In appeasement, hoping they'll go away as long as we smile nicely? I humour?

My guess would be in awareness, not only of their tactics, but posting our understanding of their tactics and showing them we cannot be taken for fools.

OK, I can't speak on behalf of everybody. I'll just go on record as saying I refuse to be taken for a fool and I will continue to shine the flashlight of truth at them until they go back scurrying under their rocks of darkness.

Muhammad said: ‘War is deception..'

Guess what, Mo? You've deceived us for much too long.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 7:09:11 PM

"Not so, Ian, the Brits did it to fuel their resource limited needs,"

Is that correct? If so, much to be proud of that, eh? Conquest of others so we can meet our greeds and needs.

"the Arabs did it for religious purposes."

Funny you should say this. The British soldiers first conquered, and then came the missionaries.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 7:10:20 PM

"The British soldiers first conquered, and then came the missionaries."
Posted by: Ian Scott

And then the missionaries cut off everyones head who didn't convert. Oh, wait, that didn't happen. (8>O

I was thinking of the Muslim missionaries.
Your moral equivalence is very infectious.

It's like a disease which infects those who have never studied history, eh Ian?
It's a good thing for you that miseducated morons can actually be influenced by your poison itn't it, Ian?

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-20 7:21:00 PM


The difference between conversions and forced conversions ... hmm, let's put the question to Ian.

Perhaps, Ian, you have a plausible explanation as to how forced compares with invitiation to ...

See, Christianity was willingly accepted because of its simple message of love.

Islam had to be forced since nobody could understand its convoluted texts.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 7:35:13 PM

The most likely reason to delay the cease-fire was that Israel may have been having having good success taking out Hizb's longer range weaponry. (Some stories coming out now have it that militarily, Hizb took a hell of a beating. There are also stories that the Israeli forces were terribly disorganized. Who knows?)

Two major features of this war that obscure our undestanding, were the anti-Israel onslaught of the media and the U.N. This is nothing new but Hizb'allah very consciously managed it this time. Nonethless it's pretty clear that Israel lacked intelligence and that Hizb has spent 6 years preparing for this.

One wonders what surprises Iran has in store.

Posted by: greenmamba | 2006-08-20 7:55:18 PM

"And then the missionaries cut off everyones head who didn't convert. Oh, wait, that didn't happen."

No. Those who didn't convert were often treated as "savages" (even called "savages") and sub-human. Some of those "sub-humans" were made into slaves.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 8:04:23 PM

"Perhaps, Ian, you have a plausible explanation as to how forced compares with invitiation to ...

See, Christianity was willingly accepted because of its simple message of love."

Uhhh... you seriously are unaware of "forced conversions" in the Christian tradition?

Seriously? Are you seriously denying this throughout history, and even into the 20th century?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 8:05:39 PM

Whatever the Brits did during their expansion, I can thank them for leaving their conquored countries ad the best and only places fit for civilized poeple to inhabit. (You cannot say that for the French or the Spanish who expanded too.)

I will name a few ... Canada, Australia, The United States of America .. New Zealand ... the people who didn't assimilate did so by choice and they are still with us.

Last time I checked they weren't slaves, but rather a priviledged sector of society .. I will name one group and you can figure who the other ones are. Native Indians ....

I should mention that South Afica was a pretty good place too until the old communist Nelson Mandell tossed out whitey to form the AIDS and crime capital of the world.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-20 8:17:06 PM

Seriously, Ian, the British spent a lot of blood and treasure in a failed attempt to shut down the international slave trade which was and is centered in Khartoum, Sudan. Guess who did and does the slaving to this day? The Muslims.

The black people who inhabit the New World were sold as slaves to westerners by Muslims who bought them from other Black Africans who decided it was more profitable to sell them to the Muslims then to simply EAT THEM AS ENTRES.

By the way, they are still eating all the pygmies who they still regard as 'subhuman' RIGHT NOW!

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-20 8:21:36 PM


That is a simplistic interpretation of British Empire history. You are ignoring all the things that were done that weren't so nice and pleasant.

You wrote,

"I can thank them for leaving their conquored countries ad the best and only places fit for civilized poeple to inhabit."

I'd counter with that they did this most often in the countries where the majority ended up being of European descent before they left.

You mention Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the US. How about India?

The USA, during it's own expansion days in it's early history certainly were not a nation that was dealing with aboriginals with any sense of "justice." It was about almost total conquest.

As far as Native Indians are concerned, you should check out the forced residential schools.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 8:25:55 PM


Christian texts say to ‘go out and spread the good news (gsopel) among all men.'

As a reward, this is what happened to some the original apostles.

Paul: began in Jerusalem, ended in Rome. Beheaded by Nero

Andrew: Crucified in Patras, Greece. The Cross of St. Andrew.

James: Beheaded in Jerusalem.

John the Theologian: Died peacefully in Ephesus.

Philip: In Heirpolis, Asia Minor, was crucified upside down.

Bartholomew: Killed in Albanopolis, Armenia.

Thomas: Pierced with spears and beheaded with a sword in India.

Matthew. Killed by a sword in Ethiopia.

James, son of Alpaeus: Crusified in either Syria or Egypt.

Judas, brother of James: Hung on a wooden cross and shot with arrows in Persia.

Matthaias: Stoned and beheaded in Judea.

Mark. Dragged behind a chariot along the stones in city streets in Alexandria.

Luke. Hung in Egypt.

James the Righteous: Thrown from the roof of the Jerusalem Temple by the Jews, then killed with a blow to the head.

Yep, those early apostles were sure dangerous guys. See what you get when you promoted inner peace way back then.

Any other facts you care to add to the debate?

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 8:30:32 PM

"The black people who inhabit the New World were sold as slaves to westerners"

Quit ignoring the obvious - which is obvious by your own assertion - westerners purchased slaves. Good Christian men, many of them.

The Brits spent money trying to stop the slave trade AFTER it was realized the slave trade was offering economic advantage to its foes. Prior to that, the British were quite engaged in the slave trade.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 8:33:50 PM

Set you free,

The Ustacci in the 1940's, the American and Roman Catholic backed south Viet Nam Ngo Dinh Diem who murdered Non Roman Catholics in the 1960's, the Covenentors of Scotland, the Mennonites of Germany...

sheesh.. how long of a comment do you want me to make?

The residential "reform" schools in Canada, the Spanish Catholics in Mexico...

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 8:39:41 PM

We know so little about what went on while the war was active that it baffles the mind. Only now are we getting the smallest of morsel. I have heard that Hezbollah had British night vision gogles, Russian anti-tank missles, Chinese anti-ships, Iranian long range missles. I have also heard that Hezbollah had built many bunkers with kilometers of tunnels. With this slight bit of info one can explain why Israel had problems with Hezbollah. Did Hezbollah build ammo dumps under apartment buildings? They seem to have built outposts right next to UN outposts. Did they dig tunnels under UN outposts and store ordinance under them? I don't know but it is what I would do if I was a jihadist. I would also build apartments above my bunkers and fill them with lots of women and children. If your enemy is afraid to kill"innocents" then I would use them to protect my weapons caches. Hezbollah did not win this part of the war but lack of info from Israel makes people think they did.

Posted by: truthsayer | 2006-08-20 8:48:06 PM

Slavery still has not been abolished and is still practised in many Muslim countries. On the unofficial level, dhimmis must pay twice the taxes for Muslims.

How do you account for the fact the take-home of the average black person in the United States exceeds the average take-home pay of Canadian tax slaves.

I see you forgot Prince Vladimir of Rus in your forced conversions list. Yet, that particular line continued for more than 1000 years before being toppled when Marxists forcibly converted the Russian population into secular humanism.

My own mother saw her parish priest murdered before her eyes and in front of his wife.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 9:03:45 PM

"How do you account for the fact the take-home of the average black person in the United States exceeds the average take-home pay of Canadian tax slaves."

Slavery by Canadian political gangs demand more than American political gangs.

"I see you forgot Prince Vladimir of Rus in your forced conversions list."

I didn't forget it. I don't know anything about Prince Vladimir. But now that you bring him up, i'm curious and will research him.

"My own mother saw her parish priest murdered before her eyes and in front of his wife."

Guess that was tough on your mom. Your point?

I have a close friend who saw his minister shot in his own home in Seattle a few decades ago. Something to do with some IRA sympathizer Catholic not liking Irish Protestants.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 9:08:26 PM

Yeah, I recall a Muzzie gunning down a woman in Seattle a few weeks back. Don't people like Starbucks, or what?

My point on my mom was that that particular ‘forced conversion' was witnessed by somebody who is still alive.

Only difference is that Muzzies, along with other examples of 20th century totalitarians, kill to enforce their systems onto others.

Hitler, taking a cue from the Muzzies, was quoted as saying you only need 3% of the population on your side to rule over the other 97%.

I'm thinking that's somewhere around the percentage of jihadists in the general population of the same cult. The difficulty is in recognizing which small percentage (17 people ring a bell ... in Toronto, in London, now I'm even thinking 9/11) is going to get a tap on the shoulder by a recruiter and say ‘your turn.'

According to all accounts, both the Toronto and London plotters seemed to be nice, unassuming kids and all who knew them were shocked that those kids were involved.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 9:27:29 PM


Just checked out www.thereligionofpeace.com.

Latest tally on jihadist attacks since 9/11 sits at 5633.

In the spirit of moral equivalence, can you point me out to a website which chronicles Christian attacks against innocents since 9/11.

Then, we may be able to compare notes.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 9:35:19 PM

"Yeah, I recall a Muzzie gunning down a woman in Seattle a few weeks back. Don't people like Starbucks, or what?"

But what we were comparing was personal anecdotes we could share. Mine as in regard to a sympathizing IRA Catholic, and had nothing to do with Muslims.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 9:43:11 PM

"Latest tally on jihadist attacks since 9/11 sits at 5633.

In the spirit of moral equivalence, can you point me out to a website which chronicles Christian attacks against innocents since 9/11."

Why bother with 9/11? Why not go as far back in history as we can?

Maybe I'll put together such a website that chronicles Christian attacks against innocents.

You see, all gangs carry out attacks against innocents.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 9:44:58 PM

R 2
R not
R 2
R not
na na na na na
R 2
R not

That's what this thread is reduced to.
You are all nuts. I am going home.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-20 10:26:23 PM


Can't do much to change history.

But we all live in the present ... so using 9/11 as a reference point is, at least within the past five years.

But, it that's not long enough, go back 10 years. 20? 30? 40? 50?

Pick one.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 10:31:10 PM

Heck Duke, I'll go back to the dark ages. And continue right on up to the 21st century. How's that?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 10:33:53 PM

Sorry.. the above was meant for SYF... not Duke.

Duke, go to sleep. Get some rest. You'll feel better in the morning. I think.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 10:35:18 PM

Fair enough.You chronicle alleged Christians scripture-based atrocities since the dark ages and I'll stick to Muslims since 9/11.

I rest my case.

Good luck.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 10:42:57 PM

Yes, Ian, Christians bought slaves from the Muslims.
There is nothing in the Bible forbidding slavery.
There are also no passages promoting slavery in the Bible. That was another age.

Show me evidence that ANY Nation or Religion of people thought slavery was wrong before Christians fought to irradicate it.

The very idea that slavery is wrong is a Christian idea.

"The Epistle Of Paul the Apostle to PHILEMON" was written to Philemon on behalf of Onesimus who was Philemon's slave. Onesimus ran away from Philemon and became converted to Christ through Paul's example. Paul sends Omnesimus back to Philemon and and asks Philemon to receive Onesimus as an equal, literally to receive him as though he were Paul himself.

This book, so little known in the New Testament, was the guide by which Christians reasoned slavery to be wrong without explicit instruction.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-20 11:01:31 PM

"Show me evidence that ANY Nation or Religion of people thought slavery was wrong before Christians fought to irradicate it."


The ancient Celts, who were not Christians, utterly shunned slavery. In fact, the ancient Celts were the first known civilization to have, in their writing and moral code, criticisms and laws against slavery.

There you go, Speller. Next?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 11:10:32 PM

Unlike some societies, where slavery was hereditary, and there was no chance of future generations becoming free,the Celts' slaves were captive foreigners without civil rights. They could always be freed, to become the client of the noble who had freed them.
From :
Stick that inyour clay pipe and smoke it, ian.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-20 11:46:43 PM

Not only were the Celts slavers they were big on human sacrifice and cannibalism.

an excerpt below

"The fall of the Celtic state worship began earlier in Britain than in her sister island. Neither was it Christianity that struck the first blow, but the rough humanity and stern justice of the Romans. That people was more tolerant, perhaps, than any the world has ever known towards the religions of others, and gladly welcomed the Celtic gods--as gods--into its own diverse Pantheon. A friendly Gaulish or British divinity might at any time be granted the so-to-speak divine Roman citizenship, and be assimilated to Jupiter, to Mars, to Apollo, or to any other properly accredited deity whom the Romans deemed him to resemble. It was not against the god, but against his worship at the hands of his priests, that Roman law struck. The colossal human sacrifices of the druids horrified even a people who were far from squeamish about a little bloodshed. They themselves had abolished such practices by a decree of the senate before Caesar first invaded Britain, 1 and could not therefore permit within their empire a cult which slaughtered men in order to draw omens from their death-agonies. 2 Druidism was first required to be renounced by

p. 400

those who claimed Roman citizenship; then it was vigorously put down among the less civilized tribes. Tacitus tells us how the Island of Mona (Anglesey)--the great stronghold of druidism--was attacked, its sacred groves cut down, its altars laid level, and its priests put to the sword. 1 Pliny, recording how the Emperor Tiberius had "suppressed the druids", congratulates his fellow-countrymen on having put an end, wherever their dominion extended, to the monstrous customs inspired by the doctrine that the gods could take pleasure in murder and cannibalism. 2 The practice of druidism, with its attendant barbarities, abolished in Britain wherever the long Roman arm could reach to strike, took refuge beyond the Northern Wall, among the savage Caledonian tribes who had not yet submitted to the invader's yoke. Naturally, too, it remained untouched in Ireland. But before the Romans left Britain, it had been extirpated everywhere, except among "the Picts and Scots".

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-21 12:27:54 AM

Sure, that might be early history, as described by the Romans. But the fact of history is that the Celts were the fist to outlaw slavery, regardless of what they may have partaken in prior to their outlawing of such.

Certainly the Romans were not against slavery.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-21 12:41:14 AM

People, for goodness sake do not waste your breath engaging fools like Ian...he is a waste of your time...he is a lying moral equvicating idiot....all we should be doing is laughing at him and his stupidity....this is all he and Mark Logan and other trolls are good for...

We are having excellent messages posted here on the Western Standard....lets enjoy them and discuss them.....don't let the brain deprived lead you askew...

Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-08-21 12:54:36 AM

While Israel did not achieve it's war aim of liberating Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev the war is not over, it is only a ceasefire.

The Europeans are not going to send any significant forces in line with the ceasefire agreement. European soldiers are not going to be human shields for Hizb'allah.

Israel has not lost this war of attrition.

It's not over yet.Check out this link.


Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-21 1:17:15 AM

Ian, I have to agree with your point, "Just like the "war on drugs," this "war on terror" is completely misguided and removes the focus of "root causes."

The root cause of this war is Islam. There is no other reason. And it is not Islam vs the "rich west", it is Islam vs the rest of humanity (explain the killing in India, Philippines, Burma, Indonesia, Sudan, Somalia, etc, etc... what did the people of those nations do to deserve the wrath of the Imams?).

Also, tally it up, the Muslims caused far more wars and deaths over history than the Christians. The Crusades were an effort to RE-TAKE Jerusalem and Palestine, which were once Christian lands, but were conquered by the Muslims. Unfortunately, they failed and the Muslims conquered half of Eastern Europe, and the Iberian peninsula before they were turned back. So go put on your Burqa and go back to fondling your goat.

Posted by: Big Makk | 2006-08-21 3:50:18 AM

Listen guys, engaging "Ian" in debate benefits no one; the guys is a dishonest equivocator. I mean, you're never going to sway the mind of a zealot, so y'all might as well sit back and wait for the blessed moment when islamofascists based in Toronto snatch him off the street and dispatch him in a particularly vile manner.

What a eunuch-like, leftist lemming.

Posted by: bk | 2006-08-21 5:01:10 AM

I disagree with the conjecture that it is necessarily a priori bad to engage an equivocator. The trick is, for each individual case, figuring out how to do so effectively (if possible). Because if one's going to use someone, it behooves one not to botch it.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-21 5:32:38 AM

Invading other countries is dangerous for Israel. Look at what's happening in Irak. That is why it chose to use its airforce.

The actual Israeli government is not the best of its history. And the strategy of giving back Gaza last Summer backfired.

I think Israel is in a very serious quandary now. It is urgent to do something about Syria and Iran. The question is what?

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-08-21 8:37:22 AM


Anybody, including me, can carp.

What's your solution?

Unless I'm mistaken, the general who led the first clumsy response to unprovoked suicide bombers for four years and Katyusha rocket barrages since last December is now fired. Not good public relations when you take out private citizens.

Now, the incursions are as they should have been from the start... focused o surgical strikes against Hizb'allah supply routes in the Bekka Valley. Sounds like a good plan so far.

Palestine has been rejecting all attempts to take responsibility for its actions by forming a legitimate state, dating back to at least 1937. They dragged their feet long enough on the proposal to just create a state until the UN created Israel.

Lebanon kicked out Syrian assassins last year and need some time to kick out Hizb'allah.

It seems kind of silly for the Lebanese president to say he will not send troops into the south as long as Israel continues commando raids. Not only does that statement contravene UN resolutions, but staying out of the south demonstrates that anybody who would like to walk onto the territory can do so without any retribution from Lebanese troops.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-21 9:19:47 AM

The worst possible outcome of the situation would be that Lebanon become a radical islamic state. And that is a real danger because Hezbollah is in a better political situation than it was before.

So the question now would be how do we help Lebanon become a democratic country.

It is in the interest of Syria and Iran that Lebanon become an islamic country where they could stock dangerous weapons.

I don't think Israel can solve the problem alone. We will have to bring our help (our troops?). And I am afraid that Lebanon is well on its way to become a satellite of Iran and Syria.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-08-21 1:48:30 PM


Reference iAN's "willful ignorance", they who decide to ignore all the depth of the world, for the narrow-scape of their minds, are doomed to do, once again (as oppossed to repeat; not on my watch)the most stupid errors of the past, including the words utterred by that purely willfully ignorant ignoramous, who stated "peace in our time".

Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-21 7:05:36 PM

Anyone interested in an excellent summary of the situation in Israel should read Joseph Farah's, an Arab American, article "Israel fostering Islamo-fascism", posted 21 August.


Posted by: Alain | 2006-08-22 11:33:11 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.